Good as well as bad news for Microsoft on the legal front. Their good news is that a judge has rejected Go Computing's claim that Microsoft used dirty tricks to keep it out of the operating system market. However, their bad news is that an EU committee ruled on Monday that Microsoft failed to comply with a landmark antitrust decision, paving the way for fines of up to 2 million euros a day, a source familiar with the situation said.

They should have complied. My problem is this points system around here, it's being abused. Just awhile ago just because someone disagreed with my comment, they decided to click the "-" button, taking away all my points and send all my comments to the basement where no one can read them.

And I've noticed that usually the first and second post gets 5 points, even if it's a useless one word comment. Talk about abuse.

Microsoft did comply, delivering documentation and source code for protocols that aren't even in shipping products yet. The EU even admits this, but the extortionists that run the Commission will not be satisfied by anything that doesn't put oodles of money into their pockets.

Delivering source code was (as far as i understand) never required. That they did do that under a form of restricted soul selling license is another thing has nothing to do with it.

They appointed people to judge it and those determined that it was not enough. Fair is fair, now they have to feel the price for screwing around. As long as people like the lads from the Samba project cannot use the documentation it is useless.

Please, the EU committee gets like 160 bilion a year.. dont think that the money that MS has to put up has much value to them.

If the EU wants certain deliverables, they should write up with some exact and precise specifications for what they want instead of vaguely defining something and then complaining that Microsoft didn't read their minds to comply.

After all, Microsoft did release the inane 'N' versions of XP to appease the EU bigots when that was requested (and not without the committee bringing up absurd points to try and prevent compliance with that decree).

It would take about 30 pages (estimated) for Microsoft to specifiy their protocols using the standard notations. Anyone could then implement an interoperable version of that protocol, and allow either: (1) a non-windows client (ie Mac or Linux) to log in to and use a Windows server, or (2) allow a Linux or Mac or Sun Solaris server to include a set of services to be a domain controller and allow a Windows clients to log in.

Instead of doing this, Microsoft offered first several thousand pages of unusable drivel (unusable according to the independent expert who Microsoft themselves chose), then they offered their encumbered, copyrighted source code. The EU wants neither. They just want the protocols specified in the accepted, useable ways.

"Samba was originally developed for Unix by Andrew Tridgell at the Australian National University, originally by reverse-engineering the protocol used by DEC PATHWORKS server software using a packet sniffer. Tridgell later discovered that the protocol was largely identical to that used by other network server systems, including Microsoft's LAN Manager software, and he decided to focus on Microsoft network compatibility after that."

What is interesting is that Windows networking is actually based on a standard, but it has been deliberately "corrupted" ... made obscure ... changed so that it wouldn't work with anything other than other Windows platforms.

(2) Samba can only work in certain roles. It has limited functionality. The only reason is that it is limited is that Microsoft have deliberately made their networking obscure and hard to work with.

It is this #2 point that Microsoft has been found guilty of ant-trust actiions and required to correct. Microsoft has refused. That is why they now face fines.

Why doesn't someone in the Linux community make their own Windows client software if they're that interested in it?

Already available, setup your Linux server using NFS plus OpenLDAP, and install Services for UNIX (SFU), which is a free download off the Microsoft website, on the end users Windows XP machine (minimum requirement, professional, but there are third party implementations for older versions), and you'll have access to the exported home directory via Windows own NFS client.

but that's not 100%. You can't run exe's directly nor will file locking for shared documents on the network work correctly... Also, using a separate file browser instead of the standard Explorer is another nod to making an extra step for users.. and support headaches, just to be "different".

Note, This would all be even better if we could write our own file system drivers, or network authentication stack code like people say other COMPANIES do. The trouble is that you have to sign NDAs and pay $50,000+ to get that access. And like the EU is finding out, MS just sends an engineer and a bunch of source, they often don't HAVE written specs, so that makes another barrier to entry even if you could sign an NDA and pay. So it's not really "open" just shared between buddies so big companies like IBM don't sue them out of the water.

No, but MicroSoft got tired of people that were supposed to study the documentation claiming they couldn't do shit with it, and opened the source to give examples of how to actually implement what the documentation talked about.

They appointed people to judge it and those determined that it was not enough.

People that are highly biased against MicroSoft and whose interests lie in that MS get fined no matter what.

Please, the EU committee gets like 160 bilion a year..

It's not about money for EU. It's about flexing muscles showing they can do whatever they feel like.

>>They appointed people to judge it and those determined
>>that it was not enough.

>People that are highly biased against MicroSoft and
>whose interests lie in that MS get fined no matter what.

Do you have any concrete reason to think this is the case, or is bigotry dominating your brain? Did MS not get found GUILTY in the US already of similar charges, and then let off from any meaningfull penalty by the incomming administrations capitulation to the corporation over the judiciary?

As the referee was chosen among a list of people submitted by Microsoft themselves, there goes the highly biased people theory. Of course facts alone aren't enough to convince people strongly determined to believe otherwise ...

The 'source code is the best documentation' arguement is garbage. Properly documented protocols is significantly more helpful then lines of code that you have to analyze to figure out what they do. Microsoft didn't provide good documentation for parts of their os that have essentially been a black box and that's why they are getting into trouble. If you believe that source code is enough then let me show you an example why it isn't.

Here's a 'Hello World' program, that by itself is not enough to easily figure out the purpose of the program, written in Brainf--k (use your imagination to fill in the censor):
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]
>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.
>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.

Microsoft did comply, delivering documentation and source code for protocols that aren't even in shipping products yet. The EU even admits this, but the extortionists that run the Commission will not be satisfied by anything that doesn't put oodles of money into their pockets.

Provide me with a link to the website that has all the documentation, freely available, and in complete form, which will allow me to re-implement the said Microsoft technologies and interoperate with Microsoft products, without fault.

Unless you can provide a link to a site hosting access to the documentation, that doesn't require an NDA to be signed, money to be transferred or 'registration' to be done, then Microsoft has failed to live up to the requirements of the original verdict.

Unless you can provide a link to a site hosting access to the documentation, that doesn't require an NDA to be signed, money to be transferred or 'registration' to be done, then Microsoft has failed to live up to the requirements of the original verdict.

They don't have to make it freely available. You may license it if you wish however, and several organizations have.

Gosh I can't imagine why something like that would get modded down. You post a bunch of complete lies about an OS, on a site called (drumroll)...OSNEWS. Nope nobody here is going to be able to tell it's complete crap. How would we know?

Try posting on-topic then. You had four on-topic words in that rant: "They should have complied", which is far from enough to make your comment safe from moderation. The rest of your comment was about this website, and it is an issue that should be taken up with the people who run the site and not on every article's forum. They were correct in modding you down, as one of the very few reasons to be modded down is for being off-topic.

And yes, I know I will get modded down as well since I am also off-topic, but I accept and fully agree with that; I should be modded down just as you were.

Everyone attacks Microsoft purely because they are the most dominant company within the I.T. industry.

Seriously - compare issues that they have been fined for with any other computer operating system:

Windows Media Player - Try to find a single operating system that doesn't include one (or several) media player.

Internet Explorer - Every operating system has a browser installed. Yes - some people say that you can't uninstall it, and that's a bad thing. But take Mac OS X for example - sure, you can delete Safari out of the Applications folder, but there is still the entire WebKit library installed deep into the operating system. Just like in Windows!

Other misc. applications - On a default install, Windows only comes with very basic utilities (notepad, calculator etc.) and some more interesting ones (such as Windows Movie Maker). Most other operating systems come bundled with entire suites of software... Mac OS X comes with iLife (iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD etc.). Could you imagine the uproar if Microsoft included this many applications?

People really, really need to build a bridge and get over it. It's time to leave Microsoft alone and move on people!!!

You list the following items: //Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer and Other misc. applications // but somehow manage to completely miss the point.

The problem is not that Windows includes these, but rather that at least two of them are deliberately embedded and entwined into the operating system in a way that the end user cannot uninstall them.

That is not the case for any other Media Player or Web browser on the market - they are all uninstallable. Microsoft's are not.

Also, Microsoft's Web Browser and Media Player include DRM technologies which are not in the interests of the end user (on whose machine they are installed).

Finally, and most importantly, Microsoft includes these technologies, makes them uninstallable - and then makes them non-compliant with standards. Not interoperable with other platforms.

Internet Explorer doesn't properly support web standards, but it does support proprietary extensions to web standards (such as activeX). This is a clear attempt to prohibit interoperability of the web - an attempt to make it such that one requires Windows and Internet Explorer installed in order to view web content.

Similarly with Windows Media Player. This program also is not uninstallable and it comes with proprietary extensions/codecs (wmv and wma) and DRM. Further, it fails to support open formats/codecs (such as Ogg Vorbis), and refuses to download a codec for such even though it easily could. This is also a clear attempt at lock-in - an attempt by Microsoft to make it neccesary to have Windows and Windows Media Player installed in order to be able to play media content from the web.

Finally, you miss the most important part of this ruling - Windows networking. Every single Windows "client" machine has built in to it support for being part of a local area network (a LAN). But again Windows does not support open protocols so that Windows machines can be part of any LAN. Microsoft has tried to make it so that if you have some Windows clients, then you must have a Windows server in order to make them into a LAN - oh, and you must also pay Microsoft for "Client Access Licenses". Yes, you have to pay for the clients, pay for the server, and then pay again for every client that connects to the server. Oh my!

This is all "lock-in" attempts by Microsoft. Microsoft have designed each and every one of their "interoperability" protocols to be closed, proprietary and requiring Windows. Microsoft are making a play to try to make it necessary for all computers to either: (a) run Windows, or (b) work with no other computers, and no web content.

That is anti-trust. That is illegal. This type of practice has been ruled illegal, by both US courts and EU courts.

So far, MS has been let off by the US courts and allowed to continue its illegal practices.

So far, the EU has not actually fined them, but it has not yet let them off either.

a) As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft aren't the only company that put an internet browser in their software that can't *completely* be uninstalled. Sure, you can remove the Safari icon, but can you completely remove the WebKit library?

b) Your saying it's a bad thing that Microsoft doesn't include support for certain codecs, such as OGG. If they *really* wanted to limit people to only their technologies, why do they even include MP3 support, including the ability to rip straight to MP3?

c) Media Player may not be easily removed on a standard Windows machine, but they did make Windows XP N as per EU requirements. And guess what - nobody wanted it! So clearly there is no real request to be able to uninstall these programs.

d) There was a point in time that Mac's would only talk to each other through AFP. That's changed now to include more support, but the fact of the matter is they only did that to make Macs compatible with Windows networks. Why should Microsoft commit time to adding support to Windows for other networks? What benefit could it possibly give them?

e) No, no, no... You DON'T need a Windows server. I have NEVER encountered (nor heard of) a problem networking between Windows and Mac OS X, or Windows and Linux. Both Mac OS X and Linux include SMB support.

"Sure, you can remove the Safari icon, but can you completely remove the WebKit library? "

You can't only remove the "icon" of Safari, BUT YOU CAN REMOVE THE EXECUTABLE OF SAFARI!!! YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE EXECUTABLE OF IE ON WINDOWS 'CAUSE IT'S LIKE THE THE FINDER ON OSX!!! On Mac OS X Safari and Finder are TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAM, indipendent from each other!!!

In Mac OS X - the application "Safari" located in the "Applications" folder IS NOT THE ENTIRE WEB-SUPPORT IN APPLE. It is merely a "container" application for a "WebKit" component provided by the operating system.

In Windows - the application "Internet Explorer" located in the "Program Files" folder is, similarly, just a container for the "WebBrowser" component provided by the operating system.

You CAN delete both the "container" programs from the operating system, but YOU CANNOT DELETE THE INTERNET COMPONENTS FROM EITHER.

SO GO AHEAD AND DELETE THE SAFARI ICON - YOU'LL STILL HAVE WEBKIT ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!

And, no - Internet Explorer is not "like the Finder". IEXPLORE.EXE is a container which by default uses the "WebBrowser" component to display content. If you type in "C:\" in the address bar, it changes to the "ShFolderView" component to show folders and files.

Conversely, EXPLORER.EXE is a container which by default shows the desktop, taskbar and Start menu. Any Explorer windows use "ShFolderView" component by default to show folders and files. Typing in a URL in the address bar causes it to use the "WebBrowser" component instead.

EXPLORER.EXE and IEXPLORE.EXE are not directly related to each other, nor does one require the other.

What's the part of "Microsoft has established an illegal lock-in of their customers" that you don't understand? The parent post explained fairly well how Microsoft is trying to deprive you, the customer, of any possible choice. The "you can/can't remove X, Y and Z from the OS" is a secondary techical detail.

"Windows Media Player - Try to find a single operating system that doesn't include one (or several) media player."

In Mac OS X if you don't like Quicktime or iTunes you can remove these from the OS. In Windows if you remove WMP you break the OS, 'cause WMP is a "necessary" part of Windows. This is a BIG DIFFERENCE!

>Everyone attacks Microsoft purely because they are
>the most dominant company within the I.T. industry.

Wrong, Microsoft is attacked because they are evil, ruthless and use their monopoly position to attack and destroy other related markets. They've embraced, extended and extinguished innovation and competition from many other companies over the years, which has greatly slowed the progress of the computing field.

Microsoft is a convicted felon. What's incredible is that practically every company in the world still does business with... a felon. Would they hire convicted felons, too? Unlikely.

Hmmm... Convicted, yes. But that doesn't mean squat. How many people are wrongly convicted?

And basically what you're saying is that because Microsoft is a "monopoly" (and I emphasise the quotes there), they must never bundle software or technologies in their products because they might whipe out other businesses?

Oh my god! I just tried to make a Notepad program, but because there is already one in Windows, I've lost millions!!!

There are no quotes about it. They are a monopoly. And there is nothing either wrong or illegal with that. However, it CAN be illegal to use leverage one monopoly to enter another market. Note, i say can because depending on how it is done, it might be completely legal, especially in the case of an emerging market. Also, whereas Microsoft is a monopoly, it is more accurately a monopolistically competitive company, since there ARE alternatives, however, they aren't a perfect replacement. The reason they are called a monopoly is because of their large market share.

My view...

The main problem with Microsoft is there is a level of arrogance to what they do. They take a protocol and arbitrarily change it. E.G. Java, LDAP . Furthermore, they use one dominance in one market to affect another. For instance, if Microsoft was two companies, Microsoft Windows Division and Microsoft Application Division their product lines would probably look much different. Office Division would probably have Linux editions out. Windows Division would probably have a Sun Java VM out of the box.
Now the important question is of course, what is best for the average citizen. That is the important question, since companies exist and have certain protections because the government(and by extension the people)* grant them. These protections include patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. After-all, no company has a RIGHT to profit - especially if it hurts the average citizen.

Im really not sure what to think of Microsoft though...in terms of what is a threat to open source, i think that two babysofts(play on the Ma-bell baby-bells) would probably far more agile, than Microsoft, which seems as of late, to be really being slowed down by its own girth.

-Michael Moran

PS Here are some sites which I thought might be of interest to the topic.

Well, I'll give you an example of what *I* would consider damaging monopolistic behaviour, how it affects a great population of people, and how it differs from Microsoft.

Here, in Australia, we have one major telecommunications operator - "Telstra". Telstra were once called Telecom, and were owned by the Australian government. However, they were sold off and became privatised.

Because they used to be government owned, Telstra are currently in possession of all the land-line infrastructure throughout the entire country.

This means that other telco's must "rent" the lines in order to provide service.

Telstra was recently found to be charging these other companies more for the wholesale renting of these lines, than they were charging retail to their own customers.

Telstra also artifically limits the speed of ADSL1 in Australia - instead of a (theoretical) limit of 8 MB/S, we are artifically limited to a maximum of 1.5 MB/s.

Telstra charges other ISP's for use of their ADSL enabled exchanges. The price of ADSL1 is this country is absolutely rediculous. I am on a 1.5 MB/s connection with a limit of 25 GB/month - AUD$70/month (that's USD$52/month). And this is usually on top of a AUD$200 or so setup fee (USD$148). $200 just to flick a switch at the exchange!!!

Looking at the DSL prices in the US, there are some plans as low as USD$24.95/month for 4 MB/s connection.

If Telstra didn't own all the land-lines, or at least charged fairly, internet here would be MUCH cheaper.

To compare to Microsoft - sure, Microsoft has a large majority or market share, but noone is forced to use any of their products. And if you do use Windows for example, you can use any 3rd-party software within Windows. Anyone can develop and sell programs for Windows without having to pay Microsoft a cent.

Such as the price of an idiot knowing NOTHING about government; ALL governments either directly through setting up themselves or via subsidises created these natural monopolies, be they electricity, water or telecommunications.

These telecommunications companies SHOULD experience competition from new communication mediums such as wireless, but the problem is, no matter where you are in the globe there is a band of NIMBY's (No In My Back Yard) whiners who want cheap telecommunications, but they sure as heck don't want a telecommunications tower anywhere near them - hence, we're stuck in a situation that no new competition can exist due to these nitwitts.

Well, I agree with you on some of your points. Telstra is what you call a natural monopoly(I realize that may seem somewhat ironic since its formation is anything but natural). Where I live in the States we have similar problems in smaller towns, where there is only one company and the price is through the roof for broadband($55 a month for 386k down). However, an analogy to what Microsoft is doing(remembering of course that analogies aren't perfect) would be if you had cable they wouldn't sell you phone/internet service. Its a situation where they are leveraging their monopoly in one market(phone & DSL) to another market(in this case cable) where they aren't primary players.

The reason I make that analogy is part of the US antitrust case was that manufacturers had to sign agreements that they couldn't bundle non Microsoft software. That ment they couldn't bundle Netscape, this is important because its a situation where Microsoft made no money on IE, it wasn't in their core business. Now, I have no problem with it being included, and in fact, most people who were for the Anti-trust case thought the bundling was only a minor part(I think Be inc's head made some comment to that effect)

The problem was that they didn't let the manufacturers decide, in fact, they couldn't even sell other operating systems. This is a case where Microsoft used clout in the OS industry to affect the browser industry.

Your example seems to be a clear case of a monopoly. However, there are several different ways a company can be a monopoly, and it isn't always bad.

1) the govt helped Microsoft become a monopoly.
2) rather than the government splitting up MS into 2 sections that are more agile, let the behemoth split itself apart. They might pick 3 babysofts rather than 2.

Regardless, when the government stops helping MS, MS _will_ crumble under its own weight, and spit itself apart.
And there would not be a Linux version of Office: too unpopular, and their growth would be hindered by the "unfair" bundling of OO.o on most Distros.

//Hmmm... Convicted, yes. But that doesn't mean squat. How many people are wrongly convicted?

And basically what you're saying is that because Microsoft is a "monopoly" (and I emphasise the quotes there), they must never bundle software or technologies in their products because they might whipe out other businesses?

Oh my god! I just tried to make a Notepad program, but because there is already one in Windows, I've lost millions!!!//

No. Just no. You are utterly wrong here.

Microsoft not only "bundle" programs, but they (1) make some of those uninstallable, and (2) deliberately make them so that they do not inetroperate.

The problem is not that these programs are included, it is that they are included and they are deliberately designed so that they will only work with other Microsoft products.

There is no need to use proprietary stuff wherever computers interoperate with each other - there are lots of perfectly viable and open standards that all computers could use. Only Microsoft chooses to support stuff that only works on Windows, and also it goes out of its way to discourage use of anything that works on many platforms.

The problem is that Microsoft are using their very dominant position in a deliberate attempt to make it so that everyone must use Windows.

That is anti-trust. That is illegal. That is why they have been found guilty, and that is why they face fines.

//So how does Media Player not work with anything other than Microsoft formats? I didn't realise that Microsoft invented MP3 or MPG!

And Internet Explorer works with [most] standards-based websites, just as Firefox and Safari do.

For example: this website we're on now... Does it only work in Internet Explorer? No.//

It is not where Microsoft does support standards that is the problem, it is where it doesn't support interoperability standards, and where it does support proprietary lock-in non-standards where there should be interoperability.

Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability, and it continually tries to push its own proprietary stuff as being the new "standard".

Hence we get, for example, Microsoft trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv and we also see Microsoft refusing to support ogg vorbis (even though ogg vorbis is far and away technically superior).

//And most websites nowadays don't use ActiveX anyway - those that do should be shot.//

But the point is, Microsoft are trying to introduce their proprietary protocols and formats in a web browser. They are therefore deliberately encouraging stuff on the web that requires a Microsoft product to view. They are therefore trying to use their dominant position to make it necessary for all people to use a Microsoft product (or be unable to view at least some web content).

"...marginalizing competitors that do not or cannot support Microsoft's extensions...". Why can't they? Who stops them from adding support? Perhaps some of Microsoft's extensions to different things may have actually been worthwhile?

"...had added support for ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator...". So why didn't Netscape add ActiveX support? ActiveX has always been extremely well documented and easy to implement. If they had added ActiveX support, they would have been ahead of Internet Explorer: Java, ActiveX *AND* Netscape Plugins.

And your arguments:

"Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability...". So, what... HTTP and HTML support aren't "open standards"? FTP, Email etc. etc. etc. that are supported aren't "open standards"?

"...trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv...". Windows Media Player always had terrible MP3 support (i.e. playback only), and favoured WMA/WMV support. With each new version, however, MP3 support has actually *increased* - yes, you can now rip a CD straight to MP3.

//Wow - that "Embrace and Extend" page is full of really bad arguments. //

I don't believe so. I think your post is full of really bad arguements.

Again, the problem with "Embrace and Extend" by a very dominant company is not the "embrace" it is the "extend" bit.

If the extensions are included (often irremoveably) in the OS, then many people will use the extensions (not knowing that the extensions are proprietary and Windows-only). Once a significant amount of material uses the extensions, then other people will also need to use Windows and other Microsoft products in order to access that material.

This means that Microsoft is trying to use its dominant position to make a pure monopoly. That is illegal. That is anti-trust.

Oh, and even if you happen to think the "Embrace and Extend" arguement is a bad one - the courts don't. The fact that you might think it OK doesn't make it OK. The fact that you might think it OK doesn't mean that I appreciate a powerful company trying to eliminate free competition and trying to force me to use its products alone.

I make my living in IT. I don't want Microsoft to limit my engineering choices, and foist a requirement on my customers to HAVE to use a sole-source supplier. In fact, my customers specifically state they do not want me to included products that are only available from a sole source supplier, so strictly speaking I'm out of a job if Windows is the only choice.

If the extensions are included (often irremoveably) in the OS, then many people will use the extensions (not knowing that the extensions are proprietary and Windows-only). Once a significant amount of material uses the extensions, then other people will also need to use Windows and other Microsoft products in order to access that material.

Oh please, this is the "developers are stupid" argument again. It's developers that use these components, knowing full well that they are part of the platform. They use them because they want to easily integrate with the platform and other applications, and because it saves them time and money because they don't have to go and make their own implementation. This happens on all platforms.

Oh, and even if you happen to think the "Embrace and Extend" arguement is a bad one - the courts don't. The fact that you might think it OK doesn't make it OK. The fact that you might think it OK doesn't mean that I appreciate a powerful company trying to eliminate free competition and trying to force me to use its products alone.

The court made no blanket ruling preventing MS from extending technologies. If the "free competition" doesn't actually compete, they deserve to be eliminated. Most of MS' competition ignored/ridiculed MS' entry into their respective markets, then complained and later sued rather than actually compete.

Microsoft refuses to support any open standards that would help interoperability, and it continually tries to push its own proprietary stuff as being the new "standard".

Even if this were true, so what. The existence of a standard doesn't obligate anyone to support it.

Hence we get, for example, Microsoft trying to supplant mp3 with wma/wmv and we also see Microsoft refusing to support ogg vorbis (even though ogg vorbis is far and away technically superior).

So it's ok for Ogg to supplant mp3 but not wma? That's discriminatory. MS is free to not support Ogg, and they're free to produce their own product and let the market decide. WMA/V is licensed to other platforms and devices for less than mpeg4.

But the point is, Microsoft are trying to introduce their proprietary protocols and formats in a web browser. They are therefore deliberately encouraging stuff on the web that requires a Microsoft product to view. They are therefore trying to use their dominant position to make it necessary for all people to use a Microsoft product (or be unable to view web content).That is anti-trust. That is illegal.

So Flash, Quicktime, and any other proprietary plugin should be illegal as well then, right?

So how does Media Player not work with anything other than Microsoft formats? I didn't realise that Microsoft invented MP3 or MPG!

WMP (actually any application that supports DirectShow) can use any available DirectShow codec. It's the main extensibility point for supporting third-party formats.

And most websites nowadays don't use ActiveX anyway - those that do should be shot.

ActiveX is just another name for COM/OLE which can also be supported in other applications and platforms (it actually is, just usually not in non-MS web browsers). Other browser vendors could suppot it if they wanted. There is/was a Firefox plugin for it for example.

Are you saying that two US courts, a unified EU government and Korea all wrongly convicted Microsoft for illegal, anticompetative activity?

When you're a monopoly you are required to play by a different set of rules. Microsoft not only chose not to abide by those rules but went to the other extreme and specifically ignored them for the sole purpose of doing what the rules were meant to curb.

"Wrong, Microsoft is attacked because they are evil, ruthless and use their monopoly position to attack and destroy other related markets. They've embraced, extended and extinguished innovation and competition from many other companies over the years, which has greatly slowed the progress of the computing field.

Microsoft is a convicted felon. What's incredible is that practically every company in the world still does business with... a felon. Would they hire convicted felons, too? Unlikely. "
-------------------

Um, Microsoft has never been covicted of any crime, let alone a felony. The DOJ case was a civil suit filed by the DOJ, not a criminal matter, and civil violations aren't "crimes". If the MS/DOJ case had been a criminal matter, a "guilty" verdict would have required a unanimous jury finding of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than the mere conclusion of a single judge based on "preponderence of evidence" (which means, 50%+1 of the evidence, a very much lower burden of proof than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard that criminal matters require). Similarly, the EU case is not a criminal matter.

So no, Microsoft has never been found guilty of or even charged with a "crime", let alone a felony. As far as the legal system is concerned, Microosft is NOT a criminal organization nor are they a felon. Your hyperbole severely undercuts your argument.

(Besides that, Microsoft and the DOJ ultimately settled the case (after the Appeals court threw out Jackson's remedies and ordered the penalty phase to be retried according to stricter guidelines with a fairer judge), so it's questionable as to whether one can even say Microsoft lost the case (after all, they're still intact, they're still bundling IE with Windows, etc). As for the EU, the EC is not a court. Microsoft will appeal the EC's decisions to a real court and we'll see just how sound the EC's judgements really are.)

The rest of your argument talking about how "evil" Microsoft is is a bunch of malarky. Your over the top rhetoric makes it seem like Microsoft is in the same league as IG Farben. Get at grip.

Because of their lobbying style point system. Everytime someone says something pro-microsoft or anti-oss(linux) they get modden down. The prevailing bias with this new voting system has turned me off completely and moved me to alternate news sites except just for old time sake i sometime come here.

Have you ever read the DOJ court documents rather than based your ideas on web articles?

There are two issues you don't seem to understand. The first isn't whether you can remove a program and it's libraries or not, the issue is the OS designed in such a way that removing that piece removes functionality from the OS. If I remove IE from my system, sure I can surf the web, but other tools like Windows Update, office downloading etc are useless. Could MS have implemented these in a way to work with any browser, sure they could.
(with other OSes, you can almost 100% replace programs like browsers without losing anything.)

And this ties into the second issue. If you read the DOJ documents you can see a clear pattern where MS has used these kinds of tactics for many things. Sure they can say it's just to improve the user interactivity, but anyone with any knowledge can see how this is used to lock in users and prevent them from using competing products.

The leaders at MS aren't idiots and they know what they are doing. I don't blame them, but once you have such a monopoly the courts sometimes have to step in the leveling the playing field to create a fair market. If they make the best product, they will win, but they have to allow fair competition and can't use their leverage with other products to create an unfair advantage.

Many people say they earned the market share they have so why should they be punished, but lets be honest and realize that they gained market share by other factors other than just ones they created. (For example, IBM letting them retain DOS rights, Apple overpricing Macs, piracy! )

It's capitalizing on other's bad mistakes in the least ethical ways possible that I blame Microsoft.

The computer we should have on every desktop right now? A modern version of the Amiga. It isn't all Microsoft's fault that C= failed, mind you... look no further than the C= officials living in Bermuda, exiled from other countries with laws regarding shareholder theft.

dont get me wrong, but the only way a monopoly could exist is if there are politicians with their hands in the pockets of the monopoly in question. Without government help, and inforcement, a monopoly could not last very long. It is as much the politicians fault and not just MS. They turn a blind eye every now & then, or make decisions that would kill its rival.
Its a lot more noticable in small towns (ive seen it a few times). Someone is about to start a new shop, and petitions go up to "zone" that area so the new shop has to close its doors. Why? The residents nearby don't want the increased traffic, noise, and they want the area to look nice. The petitions were also funded by the competition, which embelished a little to get the residents against the new shop. They also gave out free t-shirts.
When the government steps in to create a "level" playing field, it is acting a little too much like a communist country. It is better just to just enforce existing laws, without brown nosing, rather than engage anti-trust laws, and "level" the playing field.
The "leveling" of the playing field just makes the situation _look as if_ the company is being punished for being successful.
In the above small town example, it would have been better for the government to listen to the complaints of the new shop rather than shut it down and rezone the area as residential. It would not be good for the government to instead give the competing business a hanicap for "growing to big." The problem is not it growing big. The problem is the goverment acting like a parent telling a child that its OK to play in mud, and then spanking them for getting dirty.
If you want to punish a business, fine them (make it hurt, but dont kill them), and make the reason known: they acted improperly, and illegally used the government to eliminate the competition. Place the politicians on trial also. They were not engaging in extreame capitalsm, they were at a level of anarchy. But, please don't dig their face in he dirt(company breakup, forcing them to open up trade secrets, not letting do things, and letting their competition do it,) and announce that they are being punished because they are "too big", as the politicians watch the kangaroo court on TV, while counting their blood money. Everyone will see the trial, realize its a mock court, and think that its dangerous to be successful.
If the government did not get involved uneccessarily, or if it did, not rule by its wallet, there would not be lasting monopolies. And the government would not have to spend time breaking them up.

There are two issues you don't seem to understand. The first isn't whether you can remove a program and it's libraries or not, the issue is the OS designed in such a way that removing that piece removes functionality from the OS. If I remove IE from my system, sure I can surf the web, but other tools like Windows Update, office downloading etc are useless. Could MS have implemented these in a way to work with any browser, sure they could.
(with other OSes, you can almost 100% replace programs like browsers without losing anything.)

It's called code reuse. It makes no since for MS to have or support multiple similar implementations for OS functionality when one is enough. Remove DirectX and many applications and OS functions will break as well, yet most people wouldn't expect MS to engineer the OS so that DX is replaceable. It's an ISV's choice as to what systems they take dependencies upon. Each OS release includes a set of services ISVs expect to be available. If the services are removed after the fact, common sense says things will break.

And this ties into the second issue. If you read the DOJ documents you can see a clear pattern where MS has used these kinds of tactics for many things. Sure they can say it's just to improve the user interactivity, but anyone with any knowledge can see how this is used to lock in users and prevent them from using competing products.

If you read the court transcripts, you'd see that most of the plaintiffs' complaints were based on supposition rather than fact. The majority of the transcripts were about what MS could do rather than what they actually did, or had a greater benefit to users than anti-competitive effect to the market. This is exactly why MS was allowed to continue to do things like integrate IE into Windows.

and I am sick of people crying "big bad wolf" regarding possible fines by EU. I guess a bully (MS) ran into a real big bully (EU), and now has to play nice with other kids in the schoolyard. It is just a start though, I am sure more is to follow. As far as MS deliberately breaking compatibilities with other systems, well, that is a well established fact. Nothing wrong with that, in most cases just ended up as failed experiments.

What I can't understand is how some people here (we are supposed to be smart-ish) can say that "MS has complied with the ruling of the case and yet has been fined wrongly". Are they implying that there is no rule of law in EU? That people can arbitrarily decide who is in compliance and who is not? Those people have obviously never had any contact with the outside world, and need to crawl back in the basement of their parents ;-)

1) That's not arbitary: they have to sit through that long boring part where people present evidence
2) It's backed by the weight of law, so even if it were arbitary, it would still be lawful.

You've been posting an awful lot today. To my eye, it seems every other post if by you. Either the fatigue is getting to you or you're trolling, because you appear to be having an awful time holding on to a coherent argument. Given your posting frequency, lack of coherence and laughable inability to grasp even basic, well established concepts such as the rule of law, I'd say you're troll.

Nearly half the posts in a 120 post thread. That's not a bad hook-rate but the ratio is terrible. You are not a very good troll.

Nope . Microsoft is evil, I know that a lot of people just hate them. Just look at the posts here, you re the only one, the only windows zealot arguing with other ordinary users, you are on the Bill's side, you are in the dark side, you do not really understand what MS means, what means freedom, what means legal & ethics, what means antitrust - all this together called - fanatism . Apple is not a monopoly, goverment of France didn't want to get Apple away, but Microsoft is another case, EU wants equal conditions for IT business in Europe, iTunes - is different. Don't mix water with vodka

//Oh, what, and saying that Microsoft is "evil" is a well-founded statement?//

Two points:

(1) I haven't said that. All I say is that they broke the law.

(2) Some people would have it that to break the law is evil. Who am I to say one way or the other?

Having said that, I must say, I really don't like it when some large company is trying to force me into a position where I must use their product - particularly when there is every indication that they include things in their product that are demonstrably against my best interests even though I am the one paying for their product.

//Did you mention at all whether or not you do use Microsoft products?

If you are using Mac OS X or Linux, can you please give an example of any way in which this whole anti-trust issue has affected you?

Granted, any examples you provide (or fail to provide) may not represent the greater population, but I'm interested to see why you're so adament about this. //

Basically, it is my living, my job, that depends on not falling into Microsofts proprietary lock-in.

I not only have to "use" IT products - I have to embed them into larger enigineering systems.

Sometimes I have to make a system that is "supportable for 30 years". Supportable means "obsolesence proof". The only way to demonstrate "obsolesence proof" is to imagine, in the future, that a particular supplier is defunct. Now, in your system, how would you replace the bits that come from that supplier if they break down after the supplier is defunct?

For a computer that is part of one's system - one demonstrates how one would use an alternative computer from a different supplier and port the application and its data to another platform.

Part of one legacy system that I have is already in trouble over this. Part of the software development uses a large database that is in Microsoft Access 97. Already with XP machines the database is not portable - and that is within just the one platform!

I would not have this problem if the data and macros were in an open document format where the data could be ported across platforms and applications to manipulate the data could be made for any platform.

It is going to cost me a lot of time effort and money to fix this problem. The problem has been created for me purely by Microsoft's attempt to lock people (and their data) in to Microsofts platform.

I am specifically tasked to design this type of lock-in out of the systems I design and build. It is my job.

Sure, you'll get DDoS - cause you are wrong. It will be same as if you write things like: Green Peace sucks!, Freedom is evil!, Die humans!, Bill is godfather, etc.

Windows is doing illegal by occupying the market, for example gaming market. I use linux everyday, and I don't need windows at all, I can play some games on linux box, but not all of them, and I know a lot of people who is stick with windows only for its apllications support. Games, graphical apps, music editors, CAD systems, etc. All these issues are came from MS's business strategy, it took off the freedom, the freedom for choise. You are forced to buy windows just to use 3rd parties. Don't they ?

And there is nothing stopping game writers to include platform support for operating systems other than Windows.

Both Mac OS X and Linux have native OpenGL support, so there is no reason they can't have 3D applications (including games).

EDIT: Interesting video clip I saw the other day. A company is writing a physics engine that utilises the PhysX cards. The engine will be made available to Windows and Mac OS X. So this means that any games that use this engine can be ported much easier.

>> Oddly though, I didn't know Massachusett is not in the states, or maybe even in the states people and gov. are moving away from MS :-)

Well, the Commiewealth of Taxachusetts is NOT your typical American state - it and Commiefornia are the pretty much socialist police states compared to their neighbors... Trust me, I grew up in Mass - and there's a reason I live in New Hampshire now...

Like no income tax, no sales tax, and government employess I'm willing to trust... Case in point, a lady friend takes home more working a convenience store overnight here in NH than she did at 40K/year salary in Mass. What a difference crossing a border in the same COUNTRY can make.

Unlike Massachusetts with it's corrupt officials who make more than most Federal employees - and that's BEFORE you figure in Mob payoffs, Business kickbacks, and welfare state mentality.

Seriously, when I heard about the Massachusetts move towards open document, the only thing that went through my mind is "Ok, who's getting a kickback on this and from where?". It sure as hell had nothing to do with the 'freedom' of the people or 'anti-microsoft' policies... I know that state too well for that.

>Or for that matter, are you guaranteed that a program designed for a 2.6 kernel will run on two different distributions using the 2.6 kernel?

Yes! There's a thing called LSB (Linux Standard Base). It means that all software is running on all linux distributions, it means competition, it means the right market. As I mentioned before, software developed by Novell will run on Redhat, Ubuntu and others! What about Windows ? I'm not sure, how its supporting win16 applications, or old DOS programs/games (with 100% processor load)

>Oh, and I see you answered about programs running on different distros, but what about 1.x programs running on current kernel?

Again: programs are not depend on kernel, they depend on other staff (mostly on libraries).

GUI: You can still easily run GTK1.x programs on newest GNOME. Audacity for example. Other stuff is linked with Desktop Environments, and they are the part of it. And surely. There's no cases when u use Koffice 1.5 on KDE1.x, cause they bundled together, and upgraded together when DE is upgraded.

//All I'm saying is that you have a greater chance of a Windows program running on different versions and on different machines that you do a Linux (GUI) program.//

You might be saying it, doesn't make it true.

Portability of functions, data and applications is part of my job, remember.

Binary-only proprietary programs are the problem. Data saved in obscured, protected formats. Systems that communicate only via obscure protected proprietary protocols. These are the nasties that we must avoid.

All I'm saying is that you have a greater chance of a Windows program running on different versions and on different machines that you do a Linux (GUI) program.

No, you don't, actually. But in any case that's not what you originally said. You specifically mentioned kernel versions, then changed your tune to talk about Gnome/KDE applications. (Not that it matters, you're wrong either way.)

What I originally (and have continued to) say is that Windows programs are more compatible between different versions of Windows and between different machines, than Linux programs are between [insert word here].

ONE example I gave was programs that were written for kernel 1.x won't run properly under 2.6 kernels (too many changes in the kernel).

I also give a SECOND example with KDE/Gnome programs, but that was more of a question as I didn't know (hence why I wrote "can I still...").

Earlier, I mentioned that current Windows XP SP2 has no problems running many programs from as far back as Windows 2 and MS-DOS 3.3. And this is far better backward-compatibility than Linux.

EDIT: And *NO*, I'm not including the option of recompiling old source code to run under current versions, because this is a REDICULOUS requirement fr an average (or even intermediate) user to achieve. I am PURELY talking about BINARY programs. Windows is far better at BINARY backward-compatibility.

What I originally (and have continued to) say is that Windows programs are more compatible between different versions of Windows and between different machines, than Linux programs are between [insert word here].

And I disagreed with that. A program that ran under a version 1.X kernel will likely still run on a modern kernel if libraries are statically-linked. (Drivers being a notable exception.)

ONE example I gave was programs that were written for kernel 1.x won't run properly under 2.6 kernels (too many changes in the kernel).

Unless the program itself makes use of very specific kernel functions, then there's no reason it wouldn't run under a new kernel.

I also give a SECOND example with KDE/Gnome programs, but that was more of a question as I didn't know (hence why I wrote "can I still...").

But that is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with the OS, but rather with Desktop Environments.

Earlier, I mentioned that current Windows XP SP2 has no problems running many programs from as far back as Windows 2 and MS-DOS 3.3. And this is far better backward-compatibility than Linux.

"Many", not all. This is the same thing as for Linux, where "many", not all programs written in the days of Kernel 1.X will still run (in their binary form) with a modern kernel. The fact that you would consider this "better backward-compatibility" on Windows' part simply shows your heavy pro-MS bias.

EDIT: And *NO*, I'm not including the option of recompiling old source code to run under current versions, because this is a REDICULOUS requirement fr an average (or even intermediate) user to achieve. I am PURELY talking about BINARY programs. Windows is far better at BINARY backward-compatibility.

I was also talking about binary compatibility, and Windows doesn't have better backward-compatibility at all. In fact, it requries you to jump through all sorts of hoops to run some old programs (complex configuration options that still confuse me to this day).

Dismissing having access to source code simply shows your bias: compiling programs isn't hard for intermediate users at all, but that's besides the point. The point is that distro maintainers can recompile old programs to make sure they still run with modern distros, so the programs will still be available if they are of use.

Note that anyone still wanting to run Linux programs from 10 years ago is very likely an advanced user in the first place...

so you could say, "see apple! iLive, etc., everything is included". But take a closer look.

What is microsoft doing for security in their own operating systems? No I'm not talking about tools, tools the EU want to stop; I'm talking about general security in the OS, do you believe the biggest software company in the world wouldn't be able to built a high security OS for customers?

So it's right that the EU does something to MS, it's the bill for that.

//What is microsoft doing for security in their own operating systems? No I'm not talking about tools, tools the EU want to stop; I'm talking about general security in the OS, do you believe the biggest software company in the world wouldn't be able to built a high security OS for customers? //

It is not as simple as that.

It turns out I do believe that the biggest software company in the world isn't able to build a high security OS for customers that at the same time is fully backwards compatible at a binary API level with x86 binary-only applications that those customers already own and want to continue to use.

If Microsoft want to release a new OS that doesn't preclude customers from running all their old (binary only) applications, then yes Microsoft cannot make that new OS secure at the same time.

One or the other. Backwards compatible, or secure. Not both at the same time - I believe it can't be done.

So the question boils down to this: would you buy a new Windows OS (or a new PC with a new Windows OS) that was secure but which wouldn't run the other software you already had ... or would you buy buy a new Windows OS (or a new PC with a new Windows OS) that would run most of the other software you already had but which wasn't secure against viruses, worms and rootkits?

Then, you referred to "OSS fundies" who are on a "crusade" and live in a different "reality". These are insulting words.

I would have moderated you down myself if I had any mod points left (unfortunately I don't, and I only one account).

Just because the majority of OSNews visitors choose to disagree with the Microsoft propaganda, doesn't mean the voting system is being abused. It may just mean that the shills and astroturfers are in minority...

The moderation bit isn't off-topic. The abuse problem is in THIS comment section.

About the OSS fundies thingy? MS has drones, Mac has zealots and Amiga has cultists. It's the perfect name for OSS fanatics. And where do fanatics live? In another reality. Fits like a glove.

BTW, the majority of OSnews readers don't comment. If they did then there would be higher numbers of comments. So how can you say that they choose to disagree with "Microsoft propaganda"? BTW this isn't the 40ies, it's called marketing now.

The moderation bit isn't off-topic. The abuse problem is in THIS comment section.

Except there isn't any abuse at all. You see it as abuse because the moderation goes against your own bias. And it is off-topic, no matter which way you put it: the topic for this thread is "Microsoft Wins Antitrust Suit, Faces EU Fines" - nowhere in there does it mention OSNews moderation.

About the OSS fundies thingy? MS has drones, Mac has zealots and Amiga has cultists. It's the perfect name for OSS fanatics.

Maybe one day you'll realize that insults are not compatible with rational debate, and that none of these epithets are necessary. Until then, carry on flaimbaiting (and getting modded down for it).

BTW, the majority of OSnews readers don't comment. If they did then there would be higher numbers of comments.

My bad, I meant "posters", not "readers". With this correction, my point still stands, however.

So how can you say that they choose to disagree with "Microsoft propaganda"? BTW this isn't the 40ies, it's called marketing now.

Except there isn't any abuse at all. You see it as abuse because the moderation goes against your own bias. And it is off-topic, no matter which way you put it: the topic for this thread is "Microsoft Wins Antitrust Suit, Faces EU Fines" - nowhere in there does it mention OSNews moderation.

But there was abuse. There was moderation based on emotion/preference and not logic/rational.

Maybe one day you'll realize that insults are not compatible with rational debate, and that none of these epithets are necessary. Until then, carry on flaimbaiting (and getting modded down for it).

Hehehe The last time I read a rational post on this site, the post was modded down less than 2 mins. I even pointed it out in a post shortly after. People are soo intolerant on this website. LOL

I realized long ago, like most, that OSNews comments are on par with /. without the Soviet/GNAA/BSDdying spam. Most of the interesting/technical minded people left OSNews long ago. Guess why? They were feed up with moderation abuse and the lack of it. Who did the abuse? The bozos who mod down anything that they don't agree with.

But there was abuse. There was moderation based on emotion/preference and not logic/rational.

Such as...?

Report it, if you think it's that bad. Meanwhile, your posts continue to be off-topic and I shall continue to moderate them as such.

Hehehe The last time I read a rational post on this site, the post was modded down less than 2 mins.

You mean, I rational post that you agreed with. There have been many rational posts that were modded up in this very thread. But of course, anything that's even mildly critical of Microsoft or has anything nice to say about Linux is irrational in your view.

Most of the interesting/technical minded people left OSNews long ago.

I guess that's why you're still here. Maybe if you ask your supervisor nicely he'll affect you to a different website...